skip to main content
10.1145/3587102.3588839acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Socially Responsible Programming in Computing Education and Expectations in the Profession

Published:30 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Software and IT infrastructure keeps changing the way we live and work, but not necessarily for the better for all of us. Considering the implications of software on our society, and the industry's expectations towards computing graduates, it appears natural to address social and ethical competencies within computing curricula. However, this is not necessarily the case in German computing education. Due to this desideratum, this paper addresses the role of ethical guidelines and social responsibility in programming education in contrast to industry expectations. Expected competencies in programming education and ethics modules of CS study programs were identified by a secondary analysis of available data. The present work also gathered and qualitatively analyzed job advertisements with regard to expected competencies. The results (1) illustrate the lack of correspondence with what is expected in educational settings and the profession, and (2) outline implications for a socially responsible programming education. These findings will support educators in developing competency-based pedagogical approaches to address socially responsible learning objectives in future programming courses and CS study programs.

References

  1. ABET. 2022. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2022---2023. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Martin Baethge. 2006. The German Education Schism: What Problems a Pre-Industrial Education System Has in a Post-Industrial Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Steffen-Peter Ballstaedt, Heinz Mandl, Wolfgang Schnotz, and Sigmar-Olaf Tergan. 1981. Texte verstehen, Texte gestalten. Urban u. Schwarzenberg, München.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Emily M Bender. 2019. A typology of ethical risks in language technology with an eye towards where transparent documentation can help. In Future of Artificial Intelligence: Language, Ethics, Technology Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. John Biggs. 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education, Vol. 32, 3 (1996), 347--364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. bitkom. 2019. Bitkom on the final report of the Data Ethics Commission.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mary Elaine Califf and Mary Goodwin. 2005. Effective incorporation of ethics into courses that focus on programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 37, 1 (2005), 347--351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Juan Chen, Sheikh Ghafoor, and John Impagliazzo. 2022. Producing Competent HPC Graduates. Commun. ACM, Vol. 65, 12 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3538878Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Alison Clear, Allen Parrish, Paolo Ciancarini, Stephen Frezza, Judith Gal-Ezer, John Impagliazzo, Arnold Pears, Shingo Takada, Heikki Topi, Gerrit van der Veer, Abhijat Vichare, Les Waguespack, Pearl Wang, and Ming Zhang. 2020. Computing Curricula 2020. Technical Report. ACM/IEEE, New York. http://www.cc2020.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Lena Cohen, Heila Precel, Harold Triedman, and Kathi Fisler. 2021. A New Model for Weaving Responsible Computing Into Courses Across the CS Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 858--864.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jeffrey Dastin. 2018. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Online. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08GGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. DSAG. 2018. DSAG. https://www.dsag.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/dsag_recommendation_abap_development.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. German Informatics Society e.V. 2018. Ethical Guidelines of the German Informatics Society. Online. https://gi.de/ethicalguidelinesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. German Informatics Society e.V. (GI). 2016. Empfehlungen für Bachelor- und Masterprogramme im Studienfach Informatik an Hochschulen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Casey Fiesler, Mikhaila Friske, Natalie Garrett, Felix Muzny, Jessie J. Smith, and Jason Zietz. 2021. Integrating Ethics into Introductory Programming Classes. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 1027--1033. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432510Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Association for Computing Machinery. 2018. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Online. https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethicsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. German Federal Ministry of Justice. 2022. General Equal Treatment Act.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. German Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community. 2019. Expert report of the Data Ethics Commission.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. German Federal Statistical Office. 2022a. Higher education institutions - students in mathematics, computer science, natural sciences (STEM) and technology subjects.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. German Federal Statistical Office. 2022b. Trainees by training occupation (TOP 20), Total.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. German Ministry of Justice. 1976. Higher Education Framework Act.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Google. 2022. Google developer documentation style guide.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Damian Gordon, Michael Collins, and Dympna O'Sullivan. 2021. The Development of Teaching Case Studies to Explore Ethical Issues Associated with Computer Programming: Four Case Studies on Programming Ethics.. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research. ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/3481282.3481293Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Gregor Große-Bölting, Lukas Scheppach, and Andreas Mühling. 2021. The Place of Ethics in Computer Science Education. In Conference Proceedings HDI 2021, Jörg Desel, Simone Opel, and Juliane Siegeris (Eds.), Vol. 9. 85--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Patrick Grother, Mei Ngan, and Kayee Hanaoka. 2019. Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT). Part 3: Demographic Effects. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8280Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. John Impagliazzo, Natalie Kiesler, Amruth N. Kumar, Bonnie Mackellar, Rajendra K. Raj, and Mihaela Sabin. 2022. Perspectives on Dispositions in Computing Competencies. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 2 (Dublin, Ireland) (ITiCSE '22). ACM, New York, 662--663. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502717.3532121Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Horst Keller and Wolf Hagen Thümmel. 2009. ABAP-Programmierrichtlinien. Galileo Press, Bonn.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Natalie Kiesler. 2020a. Kompetenzmodellierung fü r die grundlegende Programmierausbildung--Eine kritische Diskussion zu Vorzü gen und Anwendbarkeit der Anderson Krathwohl Taxonomie im Vergleich zum Kompetenzmodell der GI. In DELFI 2020--Die 18. Fachtagung Bildungstechnologien der Gesellschaft fü r Informatik e.V., online, 14.--18. September 2020 (LNI, Vol. P-308 ), Raphael Zender, Dirk Ifenthaler, and Thiemo Leonhardt an Clara Schumacher (Eds.). Gesellschaft fü r Informatik e.V., 187--192. https://dl.gi.de/20.500.12116/34158Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Natalie Kiesler. 2020b. On Programming Competence and Its Classification. In Koli Calling '20: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/3428029.3428030Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Natalie Kiesler. 2020c. Towards a Competence Model for the Novice Programmer Using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy - An Empirical Approach. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Trondheim, Norway) (ITiCSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 459--465. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341525.3387419Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Natalie Kiesler. 2020d. Zur Modellierung und Klassifizierung von Kompetenzen in der grundlegenden Programmierausbildung anhand der Anderson Krathwohl Taxonomie. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16922 (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16922Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Natalie Kiesler. 2022. Kompetenzförderung in der Programmierausbildung durch Modellierung von Kompetenzen und informativem Feedback. Dissertation. Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main. Fachbereich Informatik und Mathematik.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Natalie Kiesler and John Impagliazzo. 2023. Implementing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Accreditation. In 2022 International Symposium on Accreditation of Engineering and Computing Education (ICACIT). 1--6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACIT56139.2022.10041468Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Natalie Kiesler, Bonnie K. Mackellar, Amruth N. Kumar, Renée McCauley, Rajendra K. Raj, Mihaela Sabin, and John Impagliazzo. 2023. Computing Students' Understanding of Dispositions: A Qualitative Study. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1 (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588797Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Natalie Kiesler and Daniel Schiffner. 2022. On the Lack of Recognition of Software Artifacts and IT Infrastructure in Educational Technology Research. In 20. Fachtagung Bildungstechnologien (DELFI), Peter A. Henning, Michael Striewe, and Matthias Wölfel (Eds.). Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, 201--206. https://doi.org/10.18420/delfi2022-034Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Natalie Kiesler and Daniel Schiffner. 2023. Why We Need Open Data in Computer Science Education Research. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1 (Turku, Finland) (ITiCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588860Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Natalie Kiesler and Carsten Thorbrügge. 2022. A Comparative Study of Programming Competencies in Vocational Training and Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1 (Dublin, Ireland) (ITiCSE '22). ACM, New York, 214--220. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502718.3524818Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Heinz Mandl. 1981. Zur Psychologie der Textverarbeitung: Ans"atze, Befunde, Probleme. Urban & Schwarzenberg, München.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Philipp Mayring. 2015. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken 12th ed.). Beltz, Weinheim.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Simone Opel. 2020. Entwicklung eines arbeitsprozessorientierten Kompetenzstrukturmodells für die Ausbildung zum Fachinformatiker bzw. zur Fachinformatikerin. https://duepublico2.uni-due.de/receive/duepublico_mods_00072913Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Michael Quinn Patton. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Rajendra Raj, Mihaela Sabin, John Impagliazzo, David Bowers, Mats Daniels, Felienne Hermans, Natalie Kiesler, Amruth N. Kumar, Bonnie MacKellar, Renée McCauley, Syed Waqar Nabi, and Michael Oudshoorn. 2021a. Professional Competencies in Computing Education: Pedagogies and Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2021 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Virtual Event, Germany) (ITiCSE-WGR '21). ACM, New York, 133--161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502870.3506570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Rajendra K. Raj, Mihaela Sabin, John Impagliazzo, David Bowers, Mats Daniels, Felienne Hermans, Natalie Kiesler, Amruth N. Kumar, Bonnie MacKellar, Renée McCauley, Syed Waqar Nabi, and Michael Oudshoorn. 2021b. Toward Practical Computing Competencies. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 2 (ITiCSE '21). ACM, New York, 603--604. https://doi.org/10.1145/3456565.3461442Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Razvan Amironesei. 2021. You Can't Sit With Us: Exclusionary Pedagogy in AI Ethics Education. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, New York, 515--525. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445914Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. A. Kimball Romney, Susan C. Weller, and William H. Batchelder. 1986. Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy. American Anthropologist, Vol. 88, 2 (1986), 313--338. http://www.jstor.org/stable/677564Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Mihaela Sabin, Hala Alrumaih, John Impagliazzo, Barry Lunt, Ming Zhang, Brenda Byers, William Newhouse, Bill Paterson, Svetlana Peltsverger, Cara Tang, Gerrit van der Veer, and Barbara Viola. 2017. Information Technology Curricula 2017. Technical Report. ACM/IEEE. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3173161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Mihaela Sabin, Natalie Kiesler, Amruth N. Kumar, Bonnie MacKellar, Renée McCauley, Rajendra K. Raj, and John Impagliazzo. 2023. Fostering Dispositions and Engaging Computing Educators. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2 (March 15--18, 2023, Toronto, ON, Canada) (SIGCSE 2023). ACM, New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545947.3569592Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Margit Schreier and Özen Odag. 2017. Mixed--Methods Forschung in der Psychologie. In Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie, Guenter Mey and Katja Mruck (Eds.). Springer, Wiesbaden, 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Statista. 2022. The world's largest technology companies by revenue and market value in 2022. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1309854/umfrage/top-technologieunternehmen-der-welt-nach-marktwert-und-umsatz/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Carsten Thorbrügge, Jörg Desel, and Len Ole Sch"afer. 2021. Studienverkürzung durch Anerkennung von Kompetenzen. In 9. Fachtagung Hochschuldidaktik Informatik. Dortmund.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. ver.di. 2020. Ethical guidelines for the development and use of artificial intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Titus Winters. 2022. The Gap Between Industry and CS Education. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1. ACM, New York, 2--3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502718.3534205Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Wissenschaftsrat. 2020. Perspektiven der Informatik in Deutschland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Socially Responsible Programming in Computing Education and Expectations in the Profession

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ITiCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1
          June 2023
          694 pages
          ISBN:9798400701382
          DOI:10.1145/3587102

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 30 June 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%

          Upcoming Conference

          ITiCSE 2024

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader